There is value and reach in print advertising. But how did each of the above ads perform in the marketplace?

Apple did better than Motorola, engaging both Apple and Motorola loyalists with the key category value – “design.” Not so surprising when you consider Apple quite literally invented organic design for mobile phones. (Yes, yes, Motorola did create the “clamshell,” but that was nearly 20 years ago, and today consumers really do function in a what-have-you-done-lately mode.) So yes, “Design” has always been a critical component of the first-most important engagement driver in the smartphone category, “Product Design and Brand Reputation.”

The Apple ad increased brand engagement on that driver by 30% among consumers likely to buy an iPhone as their next smartphone. Even among those who were predisposed to purchase Motorola, their Apple brand engagement rating via exposure to the Apple ad increased 23%. Brand engagement for Motorola loyalists via “design” increased 16% for Motorola. Apple stalwarts ceded only 7% to the Motorola brand. Oops! Probably not what Motorola was hoping for.

Both ads – for both consumer segments – did, equally well as regards “assembly.” “Assembly” showed up as a value component in the 4th most important engagement driver, “Brand Value and Support.” Motorola’s ad straightforwardly leveraged that value, but only saw a 5% engagement increase in both the Motorola and Apple respondent-segments, which might just indicate that “assembly” has not yet become an important brand engagement factor for the category. It may be something Motorola can really do, but if it doesn’t facilitate emotional brand engagement, it doesn’t really matter.